Talk:2453: Excel Lambda - Revision history

42.book.addict at 16:13, 9 January 2025

2025-01-09T16:13:23Z

Jkshapiro: Oh markdown...

2022-04-10T15:06:19Z

Oh markdown...

Jkshapiro: Explanation of revision https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2453:_Excel_Lambda&oldid=230071

2022-04-10T15:04:45Z

Explanation of revision https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2453:_Excel_Lambda&oldid=230071

172.70.98.89 at 04:15, 18 October 2021

2021-10-18T04:15:38Z

PoolloverNathan: Fix indents

2021-05-21T14:01:33Z

Fix indents

Kynde at 16:43, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T16:43:27Z

Barmar at 15:39, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T15:39:19Z

162.158.159.104 at 11:22, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T11:22:21Z

DrPumpkinz: Randall fixed the ghost head

2021-04-23T00:07:13Z

Randall fixed the ghost head

Noehp at 00:02, 23 April 2021

2021-04-23T00:02:09Z

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :Randall seems to have update the comic to remove the ghost head.  Someone should update it here too.  (I don't know how). [[User:DrPumpkinz|DrPumpkinz]] ([[User talk:DrPumpkinz|talk]]) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
-Someone needs to add an explanation of the Lambda, and possibly how Excel is implementing it. (I suppose it would immediately be useful for cutting down common re-use within a formula line, though =IF(ISERR(FIND(":",A1)),A1,RIGHT(A1,LEN(A1)-FIND(":",A1))) is a trivial repeat of the FIND, once to check, then again to do, I often need to do far more nested things, check for being a value, repeat the FIND to deal with the LEFT, etc.) But it has the smell of being effectively a Macro in this instance. Which already seems to me to be the only way to run a ''proper'' Turing Machine in an Excel column without hitting Circular Reference issues.
+Someone needs to add an explanation of the Lambda, and possibly how Excel is implementing it. (I suppose it would immediately be useful for cutting down common re-use within a formula line, though =IF(ISERR(FIND(":",A1)),A1,RIGHT(A1,LEN(A1)-FIND(":",A1))) is a trivial repeat of the FIND, once to check, then again to do, I often need to do far more nested things, check for being a value, repeat the FIND to deal with the LEFT, etc.) But it has the smell of being effectively a Macro in this instance. Which already seems to me to be the only way to run a ''proper'' Turing Machine in an Excel column without hitting Circular Reference issues. {{unsigned ip|162.158.159.36|09:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)}}
 Would it be a stretch to say that Turing's inability to prove if Cueball will stop is actually equivalent to the halting problem, except it is for Cueball and not an arbitrary Turing machine? I thought that was pretty funny. [[User:XTheBHox|xTheBHox]] ([[User talk:XTheBHox|talk]]) 11:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 Microsoft themselves claim that the addition of LAMBDA makes Excel turing-comlpete (see here: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546). Based on this comic, I would argue that it already was... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 10 April 2022
Line 33:		Line 33:

	I removed a lot of interesting but irrelevant material about the details of lambda functions and how they're implemented in Python, with apologies to everyone who spent time crafting it, since this comic is about Excel. If anyone has time to explain how lambda functions are implemented in Excel formulas specifically, please feel free to add. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)		I removed a lot of interesting but irrelevant material about the details of lambda functions and how they're implemented in Python, with apologies to everyone who spent time crafting it, since this comic is about Excel. If anyone has time to explain how lambda functions are implemented in Excel formulas specifically, please feel free to add. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
−	: Also I wasn't sure about the phrase "fundamental mathematical structure", so left it in. Usually when people talk about mathematical structures they're referring to things like rings and fields, and I don't know what a /fundamental/ mathematical structure even is, but that could well be my own ignorance showing. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)	+	: Also I wasn't sure about the phrase "fundamental mathematical structure", so left it in. Usually when people talk about mathematical structures they're referring to things like rings and fields, and I don't know what a ''fundamental'' mathematical structure even is, but that could well be my own ignorance showing. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 10 April 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:

	Now if only someone would find examples of creative loop variable abuse (I guess that'd be optimal solutions in lots of Code Golf or Code Olympics problems) that demonstrate the imperative style of code to its full glory. The corresponding solution in λ code is probably rife with applicative functors and monads i.e. ugly and awkward to anyone not familiar with these concepts. The Python example here merely looks like anonymous function sprinkled into an imperative style so not very helpful. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.98.89\|172.70.98.89]] 04:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)		Now if only someone would find examples of creative loop variable abuse (I guess that'd be optimal solutions in lots of Code Golf or Code Olympics problems) that demonstrate the imperative style of code to its full glory. The corresponding solution in λ code is probably rife with applicative functors and monads i.e. ugly and awkward to anyone not familiar with these concepts. The Python example here merely looks like anonymous function sprinkled into an imperative style so not very helpful. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.98.89\|172.70.98.89]] 04:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	I removed a lot of interesting but irrelevant material about the details of lambda functions and how they're implemented in Python, with apologies to everyone who spent time crafting it, since this comic is about Excel. If anyone has time to explain how lambda functions are implemented in Excel formulas specifically, please feel free to add. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
		+	: Also I wasn't sure about the phrase "fundamental mathematical structure", so left it in. Usually when people talk about mathematical structures they're referring to things like rings and fields, and I don't know what a /fundamental/ mathematical structure even is, but that could well be my own ignorance showing. [[User:Jkshapiro\|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro\|talk]]) 15:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 18 October 2021
Line 29:		Line 29:
	'''Zerothly''', why is almost everyone here using weird 'indents', or maybe new-contributor-starts-here methods, in this article's Talk comments? Is this some lambdaesque in-joke being carried in here from some script/code dialect I'm not aware of? '''Primarily''', though, I just wanted to say that the (external) explanations of how Lambda works in Python look a lot to me like a nuanced Eval-like process, rather than a typical Anonymous Function that becomes sequestered away as a code-chunk at the end of a loose-pointer, internally. Python's one of the languages I've not yet bothered to learn to write (just sufficiently understand to get the gist and flow), so maybe I'm reading the Lies-To-Children explanations for n00bs. Should we get some other languages represented here, either within the C-family or off into the clans of code that might have an even more interesting implementation? Nothing too esoteric, but a distinct grammar difference would be an interesting comparison.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.104\|162.158.159.104]] 11:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)		'''Zerothly''', why is almost everyone here using weird 'indents', or maybe new-contributor-starts-here methods, in this article's Talk comments? Is this some lambdaesque in-joke being carried in here from some script/code dialect I'm not aware of? '''Primarily''', though, I just wanted to say that the (external) explanations of how Lambda works in Python look a lot to me like a nuanced Eval-like process, rather than a typical Anonymous Function that becomes sequestered away as a code-chunk at the end of a loose-pointer, internally. Python's one of the languages I've not yet bothered to learn to write (just sufficiently understand to get the gist and flow), so maybe I'm reading the Lies-To-Children explanations for n00bs. Should we get some other languages represented here, either within the C-family or off into the clans of code that might have an even more interesting implementation? Nothing too esoteric, but a distinct grammar difference would be an interesting comparison.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.104\|162.158.159.104]] 11:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
	:Fixed the indents. {{User:PoolloverNathan/Signature}} 14:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)		:Fixed the indents. {{User:PoolloverNathan/Signature}} 14:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	Now if only someone would find examples of creative loop variable abuse (I guess that'd be optimal solutions in lots of Code Golf or Code Olympics problems) that demonstrate the imperative style of code to its full glory. The corresponding solution in λ code is probably rife with applicative functors and monads i.e. ugly and awkward to anyone not familiar with these concepts. The Python example here merely looks like anonymous function sprinkled into an imperative style so not very helpful. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.98.89\|172.70.98.89]] 04:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
 Another ghost cueball comic! You can see it in the last panel. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.54|108.162.216.54]] 06:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
-==> Is that something that has happened before? First time noticing it. Is it just a remnant of the sketching? Of doest it mean something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213|162.158.93.213]] 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
+:Is that something that has happened before? First time noticing it. Is it just a remnant of the sketching? Of doest it mean something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213|162.158.93.213]] 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
-==> Randall seems to have update the comic to remove the ghost head.  Someone should update it here too.  (I don't know how). [[User:DrPumpkinz|DrPumpkinz]] ([[User talk:DrPumpkinz|talk]]) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
+:Randall seems to have update the comic to remove the ghost head.  Someone should update it here too.  (I don't know how). [[User:DrPumpkinz|DrPumpkinz]] ([[User talk:DrPumpkinz|talk]]) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 Someone needs to add an explanation of the Lambda, and possibly how Excel is implementing it. (I suppose it would immediately be useful for cutting down common re-use within a formula line, though =IF(ISERR(FIND(":",A1)),A1,RIGHT(A1,LEN(A1)-FIND(":",A1))) is a trivial repeat of the FIND, once to check, then again to do, I often need to do far more nested things, check for being a value, repeat the FIND to deal with the LEFT, etc.) But it has the smell of being effectively a Macro in this instance. Which already seems to me to be the only way to run a ''proper'' Turing Machine in an Excel column without hitting Circular Reference issues.
@@ Line 15: / Line 16: @@
 Microsoft themselves claim that the addition of LAMBDA makes Excel turing-comlpete (see here: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546). Based on this comic, I would argue that it already was... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.36|162.158.159.36]] 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
-==> Someone has already made Conway's game of life in excel (http://dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2011/04/06/conways-game-of-life-simulation-in-excel) and game of life has been shown to be Turing complete. [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
+:Someone has already made Conway's game of life in excel (http://dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2011/04/06/conways-game-of-life-simulation-in-excel) and game of life has been shown to be Turing complete. [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
+:Since Excel has a way to store and do math on numbers, and also a way to 'point' to a certain cell, it is Turing-complete. A lambda function is not necessary for Turing-completeness (e.x. a turing machine does not have one.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.250|162.158.255.250]] 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 it should probably be mentioned that the number of excel rows is emphatically *not* infinite, so only simple turing machines could be implemented this way. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.15|162.158.93.15]] 17:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::Turing completeness is a qualilty of a model of computing, not a particular physical implementation. There's no inherent limit to the size of a spreadsheet, so it's as Turing-complete as any programming language. Any actual implementation of a Turing Machine only has a finite tape, not an infinite tape like the theoretical model. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
-# It may be worth citing this work. https://gotocon.com/amsterdam-2016/presentation/Pure%20Functional%20Programming%20in%20Excel [[User:Noehp|Noehp]] ([[User talk:Noehp|talk]]) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
+:It may be worth citing this work. https://gotocon.com/amsterdam-2016/presentation/Pure%20Functional%20Programming%20in%20Excel [[User:Noehp|Noehp]] ([[User talk:Noehp|talk]]) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 '''Zerothly''', why is almost everyone here using weird 'indents', or maybe new-contributor-starts-here methods, in this article's Talk comments? Is this some lambdaesque in-joke being carried in here from some script/code dialect I'm not aware of? '''Primarily''', though, I just wanted to say that the (external) explanations of how Lambda works in Python look a lot to me like a nuanced Eval-like process, rather than a typical Anonymous Function that becomes sequestered away as a code-chunk at the end of a loose-pointer, internally. Python's one of the languages I've not yet bothered to learn to write (just sufficiently understand to get the gist and flow), so maybe I'm reading the Lies-To-Children explanations for n00bs. Should we get some other languages represented here, either within the C-family or off into the clans of code that might have an even more interesting implementation? Nothing too esoteric, but a distinct grammar difference would be an interesting comparison.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.104|162.158.159.104]] 11:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 23 April 2021
Line 26:		Line 26:

	# It may be worth citing this work. https://gotocon.com/amsterdam-2016/presentation/Pure%20Functional%20Programming%20in%20Excel [[User:Noehp\|Noehp]] ([[User talk:Noehp\|talk]]) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)		# It may be worth citing this work. https://gotocon.com/amsterdam-2016/presentation/Pure%20Functional%20Programming%20in%20Excel [[User:Noehp\|Noehp]] ([[User talk:Noehp\|talk]]) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	'''Zerothly''', why is almost everyone here using weird 'indents', or maybe new-contributor-starts-here methods, in this article's Talk comments? Is this some lambdaesque in-joke being carried in here from some script/code dialect I'm not aware of? '''Primarily''', though, I just wanted to say that the (external) explanations of how Lambda works in Python look a lot to me like a nuanced Eval-like process, rather than a typical Anonymous Function that becomes sequestered away as a code-chunk at the end of a loose-pointer, internally. Python's one of the languages I've not yet bothered to learn to write (just sufficiently understand to get the gist and flow), so maybe I'm reading the Lies-To-Children explanations for n00bs. Should we get some other languages represented here, either within the C-family or off into the clans of code that might have an even more interesting implementation? Nothing too esoteric, but a distinct grammar difference would be an interesting comparison.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.104\|162.158.159.104]] 11:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 23 April 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==> Is that something that has happened before? First time noticing it. Is it just a remnant of the sketching? Of doest it mean something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213\|162.158.93.213]] 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)		==> Is that something that has happened before? First time noticing it. Is it just a remnant of the sketching? Of doest it mean something? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.213\|162.158.93.213]] 13:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
		+
		+	==> Randall seems to have update the comic to remove the ghost head. Someone should update it here too. (I don't know how). [[User:DrPumpkinz\|DrPumpkinz]] ([[User talk:DrPumpkinz\|talk]]) 00:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ==> Someone has already made Conway's game of life in excel (http://dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2011/04/06/conways-game-of-life-simulation-in-excel) and game of life has been shown to be Turing complete. [[User:Kvarts314|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314|talk]]) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 ==> Since Excel has a way to store and do math on numbers, and also a way to 'point' to a certain cell, it is Turing-complete. A lambda function is not necessary for Turing-completeness (e.x. a turing machine does not have one.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.250|162.158.255.250]] 15:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 20: / Line 21: @@
 :In fact, it technically isn't Turing complete, as it has only a finite amount of data. It might be a finite-state-machine or the like, though. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.218|108.162.219.218]] 20:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)